Dear GOP: I Want to Fall in Love, But I’m Playing Hard to Get

I am ready to fall in love. I want to fall in love. All I need is someone to fall in love with. My heart beats fast in anticipation of finding The One and making a commitment.

No, my wife has no cause for jealousy. I’m just looking for a candidate to support in the current field of 3127 declared or possible Republican candidates. I’m waiting for one of them to come and sweep me off my feet. But I’ve to play hard to get this election cycle. I’m waiting, candidates – single, unattached, and available. I’m an Iowa Republican and I’m a public speaker! With the caucuses coming up you might find me quite a catch. But my heart will not be easily won.

Ah, the caucuses. It won’t be that many months from now that I will head off on a cold Iowa night to a local school to meet with a gymnasium full of other local Republicans to talk about who we want at the top of our ticket to stop the HRC Express. The last caucus in 2012 was the first one I’d ever attended and it is an interesting experience. Iowa has a special place in the electoral process because our caucuses (as weird as they are) come first in the nation. If you move the date of your primary up, we just move our caucuses up. We are going to caucus before you vote – count on it!

The caucuses are pretty simple. One registered voter can speak on behalf of each candidate, then we vote on who we want to be our nominee. Then we elect delegates to the state convention who actually select the delegates to the national convention. The caucus is non-binding, so the real winner is the guy who gets supporters to the convention. But it’s a fun night where we talk about how much better all our candidates are than anyone the other side has! We join hands, sing Kumbaya and have a group hug and trudge through the snow to our cars.

Last time around, I went in supporting a candidate who was a fairly late riser in the race. No one else had volunteered to speak for him, so I stepped to the mic. My guy actually won our precinct vote and made a strong showing statewide. But he fizzled pretty quickly after that and my ardor for him definitely cooled. He’s back in the race this year, but he’s lost my affection and isn’t likely to get it back. We are never, ever, ever getting back together.

So, fellas (and Ms. Fiorina) I’m here for the taking. My heart is ready and I’m willing to be won. And there are lots of options – more than Match.com and Christian Mingle could find for me if I were single and dating. Here is a list of candidates I found on the interwebs. Is there a candidate or two whose not on here? I’m guessing by Wednesday there will be.

By my count, that is twenty declared candidates, six exploratories, and five potentials. Using common core math, that totals somewhere in the neighborhood of a whole passel of GOP candidates. I’ve never heard of several of these guys. Many of them I wouldn’t vote for under any foreseeable circumstances. There are a few of them I find interesting.

But I reall y want to fall in love. I want to find a candidate I’m passionate about, one I think will make a difference. I’m not interested in another Bob Dole (look him up you whippersnappers), or John McCain or Mitt Romney – a candidate that I only vote for because he’s not as bad as the other candidate. I want someone I believe in!

So, what am I looking for in a candidate? I can tell you this: my heart will not be easily won. I’ve been burned before by good-looking politicians with their slick patter who made big promises but delivered nothing. Don’t expect me to fall easily gentlemen (and lady). If you want my vote you are going to have to earn it.

Let me tell you what I’m looking for.

1) My candidate has to oppose abortion in more than just words every four years.

It is amazing how many candidates suddenly become pro-life when election time rolls around. I never completely trusted Mitt Romney’s convenient conversion on the topic. When he was a Massachusetts politicians he embraced abortion, but as soon as his aspirations turned national, his conscience kicked in and he suddenly saw the light about the evils of abortion. I’d like to think people can be convinced, but the timing is too convenient.

But what I want is someone who shows a willingness to make this a priority legislatively. Frankly, Republicans have used pro-lifers but have not served the pro-life interests, except in a few Supreme Court appointments. I’d like to see a candidate who has a track record that demonstrates that abortion is not a political tool.

I won’t vote for a pro-abortion candidate, but I respect those who state their convictions on the topic rather than those who check the pro-life box on issue sheets but are unwilling to do anything about the issue when they have the power.I made a commitment years ago that if someone didn’t have the basic moral sense to realize that killing a baby in its mother’s womb was wrote, he or she would not get my vote. I stand by that. But I want to see more than just lip-service.

Is there a candidate who really cares about the life ethic?

2) My candidate must be committed to the First Amendment.

Baptists in Colonial days were champions of religious freedom. Why is that? Because they were a persecuted minority. The established churches in the colonies restricted their freedoms and they reacted by championing the separation of powers between the church and the state.

Then, somewhere along the line, we became part of the power structure, especially in the Deep South, where Baptists were part of the dominant culture. Instead of advocating religious freedom we became the proponents of controlling the halls of power. And it worked for a long time. But during the Obama administration, we’ve lost our place in those halls. Obama has shown constant hostility toward conservative Christianity like we’ve never seen before. Can you remember a sitting president who has had the temerity to tell the church what it needs to preach and how it needs to change its doctrine and practice?

We who were once the moral majority have become the minority. And we have found ourselves described as homophobes, threatened with sanction both criminally and civilly, fired or eliminated from consideration for hiring, and in other ways pushed to the cultural fringes.

Many of you will be inspired by those candidates who make grandiose statements about “taking America back.” Go for it. I’d love to see a return to conservative values, though I doubt that genie can be put back in the bottle. But my concern is to find a candidate with a passion for freedom – freedom of speech, of religion, and of the press (Obama has been pretty tough on all of those).

The rapid erosion of these freedoms ought to be a huge concern to us. It should have been so all along, even when we were a voting majority. But now that we are heading back toward those days when we are outside of the power structure in America, protecting our freedoms becomes much more important.

3) My candidate needs to tell the truth, be wise and competent.

Sure, I’d love an evangelical candidate who shares my doctrine and beliefs. But, to quote the old cliché, I’m not voting for President, not Pastor. I am willing to vote for someone who shares my political values but not all my doctrinal views if that person demonstrates wisdom, conviction and honesty.

I’m sick of candidates who say stupid, ridiculous and extreme things to curry favor with voters. Tell me what you really think, don’t tell me what you think I want to hear.

I’m sick of candidates who shape their views to their audience like Hillary changes her accent!

I’m sick of conservative candidates who say stupid things. People tell me Ted Cruz is a pretty good candidate. But how does a serious candidate make a stupid joke about a man who is in the process of burying his son? The mainstream press hates conservatives and you can’t be that stupid.

I’m sick of inflated records, hidden histories and all those things.

4) My candidate must hate war but not be afraid to fight for right.

Many of my friends have adopted a much more isolationist foreign policy than I am comfortable with. History has not been kind to those with power who stand by and watch while evil men do evil.

Going in to Iraq and Afghanistan has been anything but an unqualified success and it is hard to argue that perhaps the US has been too quick to intervene, that our motives have often been wrong, that our strategies have been suspect, and that our ethics have not always been pristine. But it is easy to let the pendulum swing too far in the other direction, to over-compensate by becoming isolationist.

I don’t want a war-monger for a president, some blood-thirsty guy who gets his jollies from bombing people. But we need someone who values American military strength and is willing to use it in wise ways (we can have LONG debate about what that is). Finding that balance is tricky, but I want a candidate with a sound philosophy for the use of American force on the worldwide stage. I’m not voting for a “bomb-‘em-all” candidate or a “bring-‘em-all-home” candidate. Both are mistakes.

I often cringe at what I see on conservative political websites and the things that are shared on social media. Extremist rhetoric, harsh “solutions” to social problems, opinions that echo of racism, and all too often a disregard for fact-checking and truthfulness.

We see this in issues like immigration. Of course, it’s time to secure the border. I have no idea why we don’t do that. But there are also, according to estimates, around 12 million people living illegally in America today. Among them are a few criminals, but most of those undocumented people hold down jobs, have families and otherwise abide by our laws.

Are we really going to round up 12 million people and ship them back to their home countries? Really? That is four times the population of my state! And we are going to fund a police force to go door to door, root out all the illegals and send them back to the border?

I want a candidate who does something more than sound like Ann Coulter when talking about immigration issues. Too many are afraid to have reasonable discussions of immigration because the blood-thirsty and xenophobic conservatives on the far right raise the chant of “amnesty” whenever you move off the “ship ‘em back to the border” position. We must both secure the border and figure out a way to handle the 12 million people who live here today in a just, decent and reasonable way.

There are a host of positions like this, where candidates are sometimes tempted to throw red meat to more extreme elements among my party instead of seeking intelligent and workable solutions. I want a candidate who doesn’t just stop at sound bites and feeding party passions. I’d like to see someone go beyond that. Too many candidates are so afraid of being labeled as moderate or liberal that they refuse to even consider reasonable and rational approaches on issues. My candidate needs to stand up to the extremes and the fear-mongers.

Unfortunately, he’d probably not get the nomination.

I’m Waiting

Is there a candidate for me among those who have declared? Will one come forward and win my heart? I hope so. I hate the idea of saying President Clinton again – didn’t care for it the first time around!

Before some of you warn me to leave the GOP behind, I will just say – give me a candidate who can win and I’ll consider it. Who was the last 3rd party candidate to win? I don’t know. Let me think. It was…hmmm…uh.

The eternal optimist (if you knew me, you’d know that’s a joke), I continue to sit along the wall at the dance waiting for someone to walk over and invite me to the floor. I’m waiting. I really want to fall in love. I want to be passionate about a candidate.

On the other hand, chances are pretty good that in the end I’m going to have to comfort myself with the fact that my citizenship is in heaven and I eagerly await a Savior from there! I will have to put my hope in Christ and not in politics. I will have to remember that while America needs God, God does not need America and the kingdom will survive whatever happens to our nation.

But still, it would be nice to have a candidate to be enthusiastic about!

Besides being staunchly pro-life, my ideal candidate would seek sensible environmental regulations, oppose the Keystone Pipeline, and invest serious money into research to wean us off oil as much as possible for less pollutant alternatives. He would also oppose fracking.

I’d also like a guy who would stand up to the NRA, favor an assault rifle ban (with certain exemptions–I understand some farmers need a fairly powerful rifle to fend off creatures such as wild boars) and push for stronger and more consistent background checks.

I support the Keystone Pipeline, fracking, and big oil. I support drilling for oil anywhere you can find it. If someone likes driving a car or flying in a plane, rather than always walking or riding a bicycle, I would think they should be for oil too.
The above makes our country more energy independent. They make the price of gasoline cheaper, something important for ministers who do a lot of driving.
A pipeline is safer than shipping oil by truck or train.
Oil pays billions in taxes.
All energy involves some amount of risk

Some of the new, “clean,” energy sources are surprisingly harmful to the environment and to the poorest of people.
Solar farms can incinerate migrating birds.
Wind turbines kill birds and are only useful when the wind is blowing. And they so enhance the scenery.
Ethanol is inefficient, and drives up the price of corn, a food staple for many of the world’s poorest people.
Electric cars really are often running on coal.
I’m for alternative forms of energy if they work, but some of them will at best be a minor source of energy.

If a viable new energy source comes along, government will probably not need to subsidize it.
But I’m certainly for reasonable protections for the environment.

While I’m sure I’d disagree with them from time to time, I support the NRA and Second Amendment gun rights. The weakest of folks can defend themselves if they have a gun. Most horror movies would end in the first ten minutes if the victim had a gun and knew how to use it!
I also support hunting, fishing, trapping, ranching, and the wise use of our natural resources. I’m for planting trees, gardens, and enhancing land for wildlife.

And, of course, I am pro-life and a strong supporter of free speech and religious liberty.

Now that I’ve made a significant portion of the population angry, you all will understand why I’m leaning against running for president.

No allusion.
That politician joke was around years before the movie.
David R. Brumbelow

June 10, 2015 2:09 pm

Max

Not to mention that some of our younger Southern Baptists drink ethanol!

June 9, 2015 11:17 am

Jack

Rick, what about the other 15 or so GOP candidates 🙂

The list is so long I wouldn’t be surprised if my name was on it. Though, I’m not sure I’d support myself for office.

June 8, 2015 5:40 pm

Jack

David, no big problem with your views. I do have one issue with this statement: “””” If someone likes driving a car or flying in a plane, rather than always walking or riding a bicycle, I would think they should be for oil too.””””

This is a common argument made by those that are “pro-oil, pro-drilling.” However, it is a bifurcation fallacy. Walking is not the only alternative to Big Oil.

Recently I saw an add for a “Smart Car” that runs on compressed gas. There are “solar-driven” cars. I had an engineer in a church that was part of a start-up for “hydrogen batteries.” The non-oil technology is almost infinite–but, Chevron does not own the sun, nor have a patent on air.

By the way . . . I receive several checks each month from drilling and fracking on farms that were in my family over 100 years ago. I’m not anti-oil, but I think we ought to be careful of letting the fox guard the energy hen house.

June 8, 2015 5:46 pm

Joel Hunt

Just hold your nose and vote democrat. It sounds like that’s where you’re really at…

Nope. No amount of nose holding will get me to vote for someone who is pro-choice on the abortion issue.

My thing is: I see certain gun control issues and environmental issues as an extension of pro-life.

A person wants a hand gun for personal protection or a rifle for hunting, after solid background checks, more power to them. I’m not going to own them, but I don’t have an issue with it. But there’s really no reason for the general public to have access to assault weapons, especially hordes of them.

Petroleum is a pollutant. While we should seek to use creation and not worship it, we also need to strive to keep it clean… It’s where we live. One of the reasons we don’t have much in the way of viable alternative energy is there’s not much incentive for it when you have so much oil money in the pockets of the government. The faster we can move to viable, less polluting sources, the better, but not many candidates presently seem interested in that.

Should add, the “extension of pro life” part should be obvious with weapons… The environment, it’s where we live, it’s where our children and grandchildren will live. We should be seeking to provide them the healthiest environment possible to produce the highest quality, most disease free life… Pro-life shouldn’t stop at the womb.

June 8, 2015 10:50 pm

Tarheel

“…Far from a democrat…”

Don’t know – but his described candidate could be – Jim Webb, former one term democrat senator from VA who is actually running against Hillary for democrat presidential nomination.

I’m not sure if you really are hoping to “fall in love” with a candidate, or if you are just using that as a rhetorical device to make the point in your next to last paragraph.

In my case, I’ve pretty much made up my mind I’m not going to “fall in love” with any political candidates, of any political party, ever. I will likely vote. And I will spend some time—hopefully without overdoing it—trying to understand the issues and trying to vote responsibly, following the dictates of my conscience. But I have pretty much come to grips with the fact that it all comes down to choosing the lesser of the evils.

As a result, campaign season is not something I look forward to. Politicians in general don’t get me excited. I see them in about the same light as I do door-to-door salesmen.

In the end, if the guy I vote for wins the election, I may be pleased, but not all that excited. If the guy I vote for loses, I won’t be all that disappointed. I am not expecting that much, as far as earth-shattering consequences, either way.

For the same basic reasons, I have come to the decision it is more important for me to vote according to my conscience than it is to vote for someone who has a chance of winning.

In some ways, I secretly (I guess not so secret after this) hope that someone who gets most conservative Christians really excited does not win, because it would only serve to get their focus off of the Lord and onto the virtues of “their man” (or woman, as the case may be).

The only problem with this theory is that last time it kind of backfired, in that, instead of fawning over their favorite son, who did not win (whether that was Romney, or someone else), they re-channeled all that energy into hating the guy who did win.

I would much rather see all the energy (and resources) channeled into loving the Lord, loving people, spreading the gospel, and making disciples.

Wow! David, your opening remarks were enough to generate warm fuzzies, feel good stuff, and then you came to the list of candidates and the bottom drops out. Talk about depressing. And just wait until the folks behind the scenes start to pull the strings for the person they want. All of a sudden, there will be a rush to a certain person, everything will be positive, all negatives will be muted, if admitted, It is not that none of the candidates are qualified or will not make good presidents, but hidden strings do work and the puppets do dance.

Besides, don’t forget there is a work titled, Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley. He writes about them folks who really make the decisions, the string pullers, and the only thing that will counter them is a prayer meeting on a regular basis devoted to praying for the prying loose of their fingers from the throat of America. This prayer meeting must plead the promises listed by Jonathan Edwards in his work, Humble Attempt (title is much longer) in his works, published by Banner of Truth Trust. This is a long haul operation, a marathon, if you please. No more of that sprint to the finish line, no hundred yard dash, no immediate gratification. For our comfort, we can know that the feet and toes of that outfit are a mix of iron and miry clay, and the stone smiting that old image in those feet will utterly destroy it. Think, Third Great Awakening, the one that wins the whole world by the presence of the Holy Spirit poured out in a flood of Noachian proportions and by persuasion (not manipulation, deception, force, imposition, or any such means). God grant to you folks in Iowa to hold your positions, take your stand and stand. With resolute determination and resistance like Old Ironsides (the oldest Navy Ship still commissioned), gives a clear winner who does not owe his (or her) soul to the company store.

Regarding foreign affairs, we need someone who is understood by those who would be our enemies to be strong. That’s not to say that he’ll send in troops or bombs at the drop of a hat, but that he won’t waffle around when it comes time to act, and that he knows the right course of action to take in order to accomplish the right goals. But also that he is willing to build the right kind of trust with other countries, not based on a two-faced con artist act, but based on a position of moral courage. Also, this person needs to be able to read the political situation and accurately and quickly consider the fallout of particular courses of action.

Regarding the population: we are an increasingly ungovernable lot. That means that we have significant portions of the population willing to die on ideological hills that necessarily exclude other significant portions of the population who are equally willing to die on their ideological hills. The easiest group to disrespect are conservative Christians. The problem is that in a short period of time various liberals will be at odds with each other. The liberal solution is to use temporary appeasement as misdirection while implementing totalitarian controls in order to contain future conflicts. It’s a classic response to unwieldy pluralism. Pluralism only works if you have a large majority who agree to nicely accept the minority groups that fill the remaining hole. We’ve lost that in recent years. There can only be three outcomes: a return to widespread solidarity, civil war, or totalitarianism. At this point, I don’t see anyone running for office who can engender widespread solidarity, but that would be ideal whether that solidarity is Christian or not. It would result in at least a tolerance of Christianity rather than the growing antipathy towards Christianity. Civil war at this point would be incredibly destructive and will probably not ultimately end well. Totalitarianism may end up being around for some time if it’s light enough, but our ability to proclaim the gospel will be hindered by law. Strong totalitarianism will create friends of enemies and end up with the destruction and reformation of the government, then devolve into civil war because we wouldn’t be able to agree on what the new government should look like. The President would have to understand these potentialities. One thing is for certain: there will be no maintaining the status quo. There’s only one way out: Dr. Willingham’s Third Great Awakening brought about by the Spirit of God Himself. A president would have to be open for that.

Jason, you mind elaborating on that one a little. I like what I know of Bobby Jindal. I have been paying attention to him for years. I think he might make a good president.

Anything I should know?

June 8, 2015 3:58 pm

Jason Sampler

Tarheel,

In the last 6 or so years, Jindal has run our state into the financial ground with his loyalty to Grover Norquist. I’m a fairly conservative guy, but even I know that you can’t cut income (i.e., taxes) without also cutting spending (i.e., state services). In the last 6 years, Louisiana has virtually defunded both state health care and higher education. In a state that has not one Democrat elected official higher than State Senator, Jindal is less popular than the current POTUS, and it takes alot to be less popular than Obama in Louisiana! And for those who love Jindal for his Christianity, words from inside his own administration tell me he couldn’t find the Book of Romans if you gave him a Table of Contents, the actual page number, and a seminary student to help him. Like they say in Oklahoma, “he’s all hat and no cattle”.

June 8, 2015 4:09 pm

Max

“Mike Huckabee – One of ours. I like him. Is he presidential?”

Better presidential material than the current one! Gov. Huckabee has political savvy, good grasp of domestic and international issues, proven Christian integrity, and a wealth of common sense … therefore, not electable.

I highly recommend Gov. Huckabee’s new book “God, Guns, Grits and Gravy” if you wonder where he stands on issues that matter to Christians (or should).

June 8, 2015 3:47 pm

Tyler

Al Mohler for President!

June 8, 2015 4:13 pm

Max

Hillary … Hillary … Hillary …

June 8, 2015 4:15 pm

Rick Patrick

Why take a demotion from Pope?

June 8, 2015 4:53 pm

Adam Blosser

Perhaps if Mohler was elected POTUS he could sign an executive order where all new SBC entity heads would have to be his Calvinist disciples. Oh, wait…

Sorry. Ain’t nobody named “Huckabee” ever getting elected president. There’s that and it seems hard to ever get him to look you straight in the eyes.

June 8, 2015 10:47 pm

Max

“Ain’t nobody named “Huckabee” ever getting elected president.”

Shucks, what’s in a name? Think about it … Barack Hussein Obama.

June 9, 2015 7:56 am

Tarheel

Well played.

June 9, 2015 8:57 am

Adam G. in NC

Like it or not, BHO sounds authoritative. “Huckabee” sounds like a brand of generic Honey Nut Cheerios.

June 9, 2015 11:34 am

Max

Well, Gov. Huckabee might have trouble getting elected ’cause his last name is Huckabee. But, it would be worse if his name was George W. Huckabee.

Speaking of being authoritative, he demonstrated wisdom and authority in a pinch when he used a popcorn popper in college to fry up a mess of squirrels for his roommates. You can depend on folks like that when the going gets tough.

June 9, 2015 7:43 pm

Tarheel

I am not sure how it happened, but I seem to have missed the Ted Cruz joke about a man who was burying a son…was it a slam on the veep?

I must say that I did really like the one he told in Boston recently about Tom Brady being framed by Hillary – why else would she hide/destroy all her emails….LOL! I like that one because it nails Hillary and states the obvious about Brady (that he is innocent). 😉

I do not mind a little arena pandering like that – ya know – in Boston making a joke about Brady being framed – its irrelevant in the real world but it connects to the crowd…is that not what they have to do to even be in the running…to pretend that smoozing is not part of the game is naive. ALL the candidate do that – if thats a dis-qualifier then no one gets a vote. NO one. Telling jokes and making connection is different than attempted dialect transformation – cough, cough – regular Clinton tactic extraordinaire going way back to the 90’s!

We agree though that pandering on the real issues is unacceptable. Issues like pro life, pro- original intent constitution, adherence to bill of rights (consistently, not pandering) strongly supportive of states rights, strong and supportive of American exceptionalism (NOT isolationist) on foreign policy and defense (which includes a strong and consistent approach to immigration – secure border FIRST – then find a decent way to deal with law breakers already here).

I also would like to see real ideas for free market – no federal over reach – solutions relating to healthcare…doing away with the awful monstrosity of O-Care and starting over – even if it takes several years to do so (which I am sure it will).

I also want to see some real ideas to realistically and systematically reduce federal entitlement mentality and spending.

I would also like to see congress outlaw in their rules “continuing resolutions” absent national emergencies and require a budget be passed every year. With a republican congress a President who so desires should be able to get a Balanced budget amendment passed.

Evidently, Ted Cruz has a normal joke he tells about the VP. Let’s face it, Biden is an easy target- he says a lot of really stupid things. But he used the joke at a campaign stop between the death of Biden’s son and the funeral. Bad form.

South Carolinian here, Graham won’t win his home state if he makes it here. Shrewd politician, managed his last election masterfully pitting a bunch of nobody’s against each other to suppress and divide the vote that would have been against him in the primaries. No way a Pub was going to lose the general election here

June 8, 2015 4:21 pm

Rick Patrick

Huckabee
Cruz
Santorum
Rubio
Perry
Carson
Paul
Anybody but Jeb

June 8, 2015 4:59 pm

Jack

Rick, what about the other 15 or so GOP candidates 🙂

The list is so long I wouldn’t be surprised if my name was on it. Though, I’m not sure I’d support myself for office.

I’m kinda curious Rick; if Huckabee and Cruz were not Southern Baptist would you still have them as your top two? (By the way, I think Cruz would make a FANTASTIC Pres. I’m a little skeptical about Huckabee though).

June 8, 2015 7:02 pm

Rick Patrick

I may like Cruz better than Huckabee. But I’ve liked Huckabee longer.

(I feel kinda weird talking about guys this way…but at least I don’t want to FALL IN LOVE with any of them like some people I could name!)

And no, when it comes to POTUS, I do not vote denominationally. Reagan was ten times better than Carter, which is to say that a C student Presbyterian was actually a better President than an A student Southern Baptist.

June 8, 2015 10:14 pm

Tarheel

Roughly the order of ones I might could support (it changes from day to day)

Will not support – Huckabee or Jeb or Trump or Pataki (probably more in this category)

June 8, 2015 7:36 pm

Adam G. in NC

Tarheel, if you want to line up with your ideological wish list you posted earlier…you’ll need to flip this list.

June 8, 2015 10:50 pm

Tarheel

Huckabee, Trump, Jeb, and Pataki???

😉

June 8, 2015 11:29 pm

Tarheel

Graham and Christie are also in my will not support list.

June 11, 2015 8:20 am

Max

Just be thankful for Amendment 22 … the two-term limit on the presidency. Nobama! Of course, I guess it’s possible that if all hell breaks loose on planet earth before the next election (e.g., WW III), Congress might authorize keeping the current POTUS in place.

Regarding the GOP runners, I keep waiting for someone else to step out of nowhere illuminated by a beam of light from heaven. Surely, surely, there must be somebody else! When the current list have their files opened and the mudslinging starts, they’ll drop like rocks. It’s getting tougher and tougher to raise a national son to the highest office in the country that doesn’t have some sort of shame in his background.

June 8, 2015 6:57 pm

Jess

Personally, I will vote for the party and person that lies the least, I will definitely be listening and researching.

For me so far on the Republican side there are only two options- Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. Everyone else is either too crazy (Cruz) too corrupt (Jindal) or inelectable (the rest of the field)

On the Dem side, I don’t see anything promising yet- though I think some of you are too focused on Bill Clinton’s moral failures, and are missing some of his governing successes. He’s the last guy to really work a bipartisan government. I doubt Hillary can do the same though.

I agree wholeheartedly with something Dave said above- we are electing a President, not a pastor so I want someone who will make government work again and bring people together. That being said, I’m not voting for someone who co-opts my faith for the purpose of trying to get my vote (I’m looking dead at you McCain and Romney) That strategy is a sure fire failure with me.

All that to say, I’m as undecided as they get and the folks at the dance ain’t gettinf any more attractive as the night wears on.

June 8, 2015 10:14 pm

Tyler

“For me so far on the Republican side there are only two options- Rand Paul and Marco Rubio.”
Hey I’m not the only one out there that thinks Paul is the best choice! Yah! But seriously, hes really the only one I can see beating Clinton and he also seems to be the most Constitutional.

Yeah. His foreign policy is a negative for me – at least my current understanding

June 9, 2015 2:41 pm

Robert I Masters

Iam a theonomist

I know most of my theonomist friends are going with Paul but
“I Like MIKE”

I have found his answers to all questions put to him to be reasonable.

His college roommate at Ouachita was in my sister-in -laws class at Rift Valley Academy in Kenya. Her parents were on the Faculty/staff there . He attest’s to Mikes good character.

Mike is solid in his theology. I think we need more pastor /politicians in government not less so good to have real evangelical bonafides.I also believe that Christians should prefer Christians in leadership unless that person demonstrates gross error .

Good discussion on that topic here with a debate between Robert Jeffress
and Jay Sekulow.In my opinion Dr Jeffress had the better argument!

Being 100% honest here. I have NEVER received more anti-abortion literature from any one specific politician than I have Rand Paul, and I live in NC. Never done anything that I know of to get on any mailing list either. Come election time, he practically bombards all the mailboxes in my area.
That CANNOT be said for my elected representative Renee Ellmers. She’s one of Boehner’s robots who hasn’t done much to raise a fuss…except beating Clay Aiken and OPPOSING more restrictions on abortions. Go figure.

Imma go with what I know. Rand Paul HATES abortion and loves liberty. He’s also Presbyterian, which isnt Baptist, but definitely not Catholic or Seventh Day Adventist.

June 8, 2015 11:02 pm

Tarheel

What specific legislation has he passionately fought for to do something about abortion?

Has he filibustered tgat issue? Has he even given a speech on it? Not really. In fact he’s said social issues (like abortion) are secondary.

June 8, 2015 11:32 pm

Adam G. in NC

I think you have selective reading problems, but that’s fine. Your opinion…and your right (guess who’d fight for it the most) I wish I’d hear some of the same abortion rhetoric out of most of those neocons that use nationalism to drum up “popular” support for us fighting everyone elses battles all over the world. Aint nobody gonna do anything as long as they know some neocon republican is gonna bring american soldiers over to do it for them.

I think you’re more offended by Paul’s stance against blind nationalism and foreign adventurism than anything about abortion. He doesnt stroke that “bomb, bomb, Iran” ego that some arm-chair warriors follow.

I think you’d like Lindsey Graham. She seems like a good neocon interventionist candidate. Very pragmatic.

June 9, 2015 12:01 pm

Tyler

Yea, Paul is HUGE about Liberty.

June 9, 2015 8:51 am

Tarheel

Babies in womb subjected to vacuum suction, saline solution and other medicinal/surgical death don’t fall under his criteria for impassioned calls for life and liberty though.

June 9, 2015 9:05 am

Adam Blosser

I’m not sure what it is with you and Rand Paul, but your efforts to pretend as if he doesn’t care about the unborn because he doesn’t go about it the way you think he should are ridiculous. What other candidates have filibustered the abortion issue? How would one go about doing that anyway? He supports the bills limiting abortion that come before the senate. You don’t filibuster bills you support. It is clearly false to suggest that because one shows passion about one issue and handles it a certain way that he must not be passionate about other issues if he doesn’t approach them the same way. In fact, Rand Paul has given a better answer than most of the other candidates regarding this particular issue. Republicans continue to allow the media and Democrats to put them on the defensive about this issue.

I’d like to see the same impassioned pleas and work on abortion and social issues that he gives on other issues.

June 9, 2015 9:33 am

Tarheel

He could propose bills/amendments to limit abortion or he could filibuster popular bills that don’t contain protections or those that fund planned parenthood.

June 9, 2015 9:36 am

Tarheel

Adam,

I’m not sure what you think that link proves – to me it showed him equivocating by saying I am “generally” and pro-life. He did brilliantly expose a hole in the no exemption mantra of the far left liberal’s – but he didn’t exactly take a strong stand on abortion in that answer – it’s that kind of thing that bothers me most I think about him – he can be so clear and so concise and so dogmatic on certain issues but when it comes to issues of abortion and other important social issues he’s a lot more equivocal than I like.

June 9, 2015 9:43 am

Adam Blosser

You can parse his words if you would like. Perhaps you think he is lying on his campaign website (https://www.randpaul.com/issue/sanctity-of-life). If so, I am not sure how you can justify being willing to vote for him if he did receive the nomination.

The reality is that the SC justices appointed by a President Paul would be much more likely to uphold the constitution and roll back Roe vs. Wade than any of the other candidates. It doesn’t really matter in the end whether the rhetoric is what you prefer. It matters more who is actually going to do something about the issue. In the meantime, he supports legislation to limit abortion and eliminate tax payer funding of abortion.

No, Tarheel, he has at least a point on this one. The Supreme Court brought us abortion on demand and that is where the battles have been fought.

The failure of two or three key appointments has given aid and comfort to the abortion industry.

June 9, 2015 9:41 am

dr. james willingham

And the same court is about to deliver the coup de ta to religious liberty, if, as we expect, they vote to legalize same sex marriage. The article in the Washington Post about the calls for harsh treatment against Christians for their stand against such practices makes it plain that all of our liberties are forfeit. I think it was Jefferson who said something to the effect that the Court would become a problem due to its not being elected by the people.

June 9, 2015 12:20 pm

Tarheel

Miller,

1973 SCOTUS was a conservative court?

June 9, 2015 9:45 am

dr. james willingham

The idea that the Court has been conservative went by the wayside in the Roosevelt years (Franklin that is). He threatened to enlarge the court in order to get his social programs accepted. And during the Truman administration did not the Court first consider the wall of separation idea from an off-hand remark in one of Jefferson’s letters to a Baptist association? Quite obviously, Jefferson did not believe what the Court has made it out to be, that is, he attended church every Sunday in the Capital building during his presidency, and he considered the Baptist church near Monticello as a nursery for learning democracy.

June 9, 2015 12:30 pm

Tarheel

Plus he said “all conservative…”

Also, for a supporter of Barack Obama to berate anyone on creating more abortion and giving aid to the abortion industry is absolutely laughable he ( and the entire current Democrat party leadership) is the most radical pro-abortion group ever.

June 9, 2015 9:48 am

Tarheel

And Souter deceived to get his appointment and is not a conservative – never has been on SCOTUS.

I’m just saying that if conservative presidents (Reagan, Bush 1 and 2) had been more careful on their appointments, there would be a conservative majority on the court and a lot of the junk we don’t like wouldn’t have happened. “Justice Bork” would have been nice.

June 9, 2015 10:03 am

dr. james willingham

Have you considered the influence of the CFR’s (Council on Foreign Relations) influence on the appointments? The CFR is the means by which certain folks get their desires done in government.

June 9, 2015 12:37 pm

Dean Stewart

In 1973 the court was not conservative but it was made up of a majority appointed by Republicans.

With six appointments being made while Nixon was either president or vice-president it can be argued Nixon’s court gave us approval of Roe vs. Wade. White and Rehnquist were the dissenters of the decision. White was appointed by a democrat and Rehnquist was appointed by a republican.

June 9, 2015 10:08 am

dr. james willingham

Wake up and smell the cooking! POTUS is a tool of other interests. CF. Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope. SCOTUS is also.

I don’t think anyone really imagined then the court becoming what it is today.

June 9, 2015 10:41 am

Tarheel

Neither I nor Nixon could be identified as social conservatives – their appointments were right in line with who they were.

Republican does not always equal conservative – was it a Republican court yes – was it a conservative court certainly not.

June 9, 2015 10:58 am

Tarheel

*Ike

Rehnquist was hey conservative – but he was the only conservative appointed by either ike or Nixon.

June 9, 2015 11:00 am

Dean Stewart

Heel, please read the first sentence in my comment.

June 9, 2015 11:11 am

Tarheel

Words mean things.

“I’m generally prolife” does NOT equal “I am prolife”.

Would you hire a staff pastor who says “look, I generally believe the Bible is the word of God”.

That word generally is a very important one.

I also have issues with his support for the legalization of drugs.

I’m not a graham fan for lots of reasons – but I’ve noticed “rand Paulites” use that talking point quite often when defending his stances on foreign policy rhetoric – which is not altogether different than that of BHO, BTW. (We’ve seen how effective that approach is.)

June 9, 2015 4:27 pm

Adam G. in NC

Rand Paul is not for the legalization of drugs. He recommends lighter sentencing for small-time users and returning jurisdiction for all drug laws (lighter or more strict) over to the states, per the constitution( (#10). Hey, VA could issue the death penalty for career drug traffickers if they wanted.

I like him because I believe that he most represents the America envisioned by the folks who risked their lives and sacred honor to help create it.

June 9, 2015 10:46 pm

Adam Blosser

The word “generally” would be a red flag. I would ask a potential staff member what he meant. I would then put that on my list of questions to ask his references about. I would find out for sure what he believes about the Bible.

You didn’t answer my question. Do you believe Rand Paul is lying on his campaign website regarding abortion? Again, if your answer is yes, I am not sure how you can justify supporting him even at the bottom of your laundry list of candidates.

June 10, 2015 5:48 am

Tarheel

I think it’s a whole lot easier to put something on the website or no one will ask you follow up questions – when he was asked a very simple unequivocal question – he gave a very equivocal answer – he could have been much, much, more clear of a strong position but he chose to play word games. Like I said, he is so clear so dogmatic and so unequivocal on so many issues but when it comes to this one he often equivocates.

As to the false choice that you posted regarding the general election – I think there are others in the race for the nomination that are more solid on the issue – therefore I will support them over him in the primary – in case you don’t know it – that’s exactly what primaries are for.

However, I would assume that given the laundry list of Democrats that are running even a “generally pro life” Rand Paul would be a better choice than any one of them on the issue – but I don’t have to make that choice unless he gets the nomination – which I still contend that he will not.

June 10, 2015 7:33 am

Tarheel

Adam G,

“Rand Paul is not for the legalization of drugs. He recommends lighter sentencing for small-time users and returning jurisdiction for all drug laws…”

Lighter sentencing is one thing – but doesn’t he support decriminalzation?

June 10, 2015 7:40 am

Adam Blosser

Would you stop equivocating and answer my question? When you listed your candidates in this thread, you gave a laundry list of candidates you would support were they to receive the Republican nomination. Rand Paul was on that list. Then you gave some candidates that you would not support. Why is it that you would support Rand Paul for president if he were to get the nomination when you don’t believe him when he says he is pro-life?

You say its much easier to put something on the website. Of course it is. It is much easier to make your position very clear when given the chance to think about your answer, write it down, and read back over it to make sure it says what you want it to say. It is much more difficult to answer a question off the cuff. Now I am not saying that presidents do not need to be able to answer questions off the cuff. Obviously they do. If being unclear when asked a question is a problem for Paul, then perhaps that is disqualifying. But you pretending that he is not pro-life and continuing to put forth that false narrative is disingenuous.

The “war on drugs” has accomplished nothing other than overcrowding prisons, disenfranchising an entire generation of minorities, and overburdening the federal budget with dollars for a “war” that we aren’t winning. Rand proposes changing how we deal with drugs, dealers, and users.

Since the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, I think it’s “high” time for a change.

For interesting and informative reading on the impetus and results of the “war on drugs” read The New Jim Crow chapter 1.

June 10, 2015 8:12 am

Dean Stewart

I wonder if Heel and others might dislike R Paul because he consistently has proposed “stand with Israel” legislation?

June 10, 2015 8:31 am

Tarheel

Huh, dean?

I happen to think that Israel is one of America’s most important geopolitical allies. I support “standing with Israel”.

June 10, 2015 10:56 am

Tarheel

Adam, I am not equivocating whatsoever I am simply saying that I could vote for him and I general election if I had to but he would not be my choice and I would not be very happy about it – but I will not read this well – will not – vote for him in the primary.

You are apparently failing to understand the difference between a primary and a general election – I will not support Rupaul in the primary because I do not trust him as much as I trust other republicans running against him on a number of issues – however if he is running against Hillary/Saunders/Warren
(Who I think will actually be the Democrat nominee) or O’mally.

Further, there’s nothing disingenuous about my comments on this issue.

June 10, 2015 11:02 am

Adam Blosser

I don’t understand the difference between the general election and the primary? Really? I am going on your own statements. You listed several Republican candidates that you would not support whatsoever. At the end of a list of candidates you would support, you put Rand Paul. I am asking why you would support him at all if you do not believe that he is pro-life. You seem to be stating that you will vote for a 3rd party candidate if Jeb Bush and company get the nomination. Why wouldn’t you support a 3rd party candidate if Rand Paul got the nomination since you do not believe that he is pro-life?

June 10, 2015 11:19 am

Dean Stewart

Heel, I was just searching for a reason why you have a hard time supporting R Paul. Your reasons make no sense. You say he is weak on abortion and drugs but offer no evidence. He hasn’t filibustered abortion laws but you don’t filibuster established law.Every single scorecard I have seen list Paul as either being # 1 or 2 most conservative among even possible candidates. He is ranked again and again in the top 5 most conservative congressmen in Washington. The pundits that follow these things do not agree with your assessment of Paul. Here is the conservative review’s scorecard of republican candidates. By clicking scorecard at the top of the page you can also see the grades of each congress member. This portion of cr is free.

He comes across as non-presidential at times. Sometimes he does appear to be playing to his support with what he does. He has made some comments about vaccines that will rub many the wrong way. He may not be electable but he is conservative.

June 10, 2015 11:52 am

Tarheel

Adam, again….I am saying that a “generally prolife” candidate is better than one that is essentially pro abortion (read – any democrat in the running or being mentioned – plus the DNC official platform is clearly pro – abortion). In a general election I would be choosing between a democrat and republican (if I want to vote for someone who could actually be president) – in the primary I can choose between several conservative candidates – some of who I trust more on the abortion issue than I do Rand Paul.

While “generally profile” (Pauls words not mine, BTW) is not good enough to get my vote in a primary – it is better than a pro abortion opponent in a general. The reason he is at the bottom of my list is that when compared to those above him he ranks there on my list – for a number of reasons – the “generally pro-life” comment being one of them.

I do not know how much clearer I can be, sir.

The ones under my I will not support list will elicit a third party “principled” throw away vote from me rather than vote for them. I do not remember of Graham was on that list or not originally – but he should be – I tend to ignore him so much that he has become irrelevant.

Look Paul is a true blue libertarian who happens to be a republican and must be so to get a platform…but I have a sneaking suspicion (its just a hunch therefore no proof is required) that his libertarian streak might be wider than he lets on right now. I cannot put my finger on it – but I have a higher level of trust for other candidates than I do him – especially, but not exclusively on the matter of abortion – of course I was skeptical of his father too – maybe that is part of it.

June 10, 2015 2:24 pm

Tarheel

To put it another way….I think Paul is, just like *HE* said, “generally prolife” (so that puts him above all known Dem presidential candidates, but below other known/potential republican candidates in my book) – I believe that others in the rep primary competition are more than “generally” pro life…so I will vote for one of them.

However, if Paul is the last man standing and is running against a democrat then that is a horse of a different color.

June 10, 2015 2:42 pm

Adam G. in NC

“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”
-President Reagan

Adam,
Reagan is correct except for one thing. There is a fundamental difference between true conservatives and libertarianism. Conservatives recognize in some way the fallen nature of man. While they seek limited government, those limits do not mitigate the need for accountability. The goal is to legislate and enforce that legislation so that personal responsibility is maximized and personal irresponsibility is minimized. It’s a delicate balance that can only be upheld by accountability. That’s why we have checks and balances built into the government. If libertarianism is taken to it’s logical extreme, you end up with anarchy.

Liberals sell their policies on libertarian principles and use the occasion to implement totalitarianism. So the propaganda includes the basic goodness of people over and against their oppressors (who is someone other than the government), and promises to punish their oppressors. Ultimately, the rulers actually view people as incapable of taking care of themselves and end up punishing everyone. That’s the modern way of taking power away from people while making them think you are giving them power. It’s become a common strategy for rulers in many countries today.

June 11, 2015 7:15 am

Tarheel

That’s exactly right Jim!

The hip and cool thing for young people today is to be full-blown libertarian – I know that – I’m just not one – libertarianism is based a little bit too much in the – as Bart Barber put it one time, “the idolatry of autonomy”.

June 11, 2015 7:45 am

Adam G. in NC

libertarianism isnt anarchism. I think you’re confusing it or at least blurring the lines. libertarianism can have it’s crazies, much like conservatives can have it’s neo-fascists, but libertarians have always been proponents of personal responsibility and accountability. You break it, you buy it. You act irresponsibly, you suffer from it. No welfare state. Less govt and more liberty came from years of service under the idea of “divine right” and realization of what inevitably happens when power is given to the wicked few. Show me the benevolent dictator this side of heaven!

small “l” libertarianism isnt anarchy in the least, it just has less stupid laws and lets the rest come out in the “free market” wash.

Adam,
What you are describing is conservatism. I know too many libertarians whose sentiment behind their position is to not be held accountable.

If your desire is to do whatever you want to, with the government and everyone else out of your business, then libertarianism is your only option.

If your desire is to do whatever you want to do and to have government protect that liberty by punishing anyone you think would try to take it away by taking away the liberty they want, you want liberalism.

If you want to be able to make your own way in a civilized world and recognize that some regulation is necessary for all of us to be civilized, then you want conservatism.

June 11, 2015 1:26 pm

Adam G. in NC

Jim, I think you are taking it to an extreme, or at least confusing libertarianism with libertinism. I wouldnt describe myself as an outright “libertarian”, but I would say I have libertarian leanings. I dont think it’s the boogeyman people should be afraid of. I believe that the folks who established our nation sought to create a system with the most individual liberty as possible, but not without some regulation. I dont think that is at odds with “small L” libertarianism. (please acknowledge the difference between this and anarchy). The least government regulation that is needed (minarchy).

Modern conservatism isnt as you describe it. The liberal roots of todays dominant (in the GOP) neo-conservative philosophy shows clearest in its inherent pragmatic approach to just about everything. It is no longer based on conservative (libertarian rooted) principles, but only about maintaining the status quo. It really doesnt accomplish anything other than being a drag on society’s liberal progress. Instead of light-speed, we get a steady pace. Either way, we drift liberal. Look at the last 80 years. What battle has conservatism won?

I myself am a proud reactionary. I dont want to see the liberal progression of this country slowed. I dont want it stopped. I want it reversed.

I considered moving to NC just so I could vote AGAINST Ellmers in the next election.

June 9, 2015 9:37 am

Adam G. in NC

I would bet on her having a primary opponent. I’m still a little agitated that Tillis got the senate nomination here instead of Greg Brannon.

June 9, 2015 11:44 am

Jack

“””Rand Paul HATES abortion and loves liberty.””” This certainly puts him at the starting line for me.

June 9, 2015 12:48 pm

Tarheel

Actually Jack, he’s “generally prolife” – that’s a long way from “hating abortion”.

June 9, 2015 4:30 pm

Jack

That would still be a big step forward.

I also realize it could be the disaster that so many other “generally pro-life” candidates have been.

I just think Paul seems highly principled and a “known” quantity. Just something about him.

I don’t admit it in public, but I even liked Ross Perot.

June 9, 2015 5:50 pm

dr. james willingham

Some are crying jobs in the oil and gas industry, but where those folks when both the Republicans and the Democrats voted to send our jobs to China and elsewhere with the free trade agreements and the World Trade outfit? Did you all know that there use to be electric cars in early 20th century America with recharging stations in various cities? And did you all know that Nikola Tesla wanted to give everyone free electricity, but J.P. Morgan said no and wrecked him, financially. The reason being control. Guess also (not Morgan) who made money from the Gas and Oil and were even selling it to the Germans until the middle of 1944. Also have you all seen the book, IBM and the Holacaust? They had an office across from Auschwitz, supplying the computer punch cards for the machines and depositing the money in Swiss bank accounts. Their punch cards enabled the Germans to know where every Jew was in every country they invaded, enabling them to round them up and on the railroad to the concentration and extermination camps. Every see in any photographs taken by a church member of one of those camps (I mean a member with an advanced army group in 1945)? And then there was a member of a certain family which had to press who had to be closed down by the US govt. for helping the German finances too much during WWII. O, and our local paper, Durham, NC, paper carried the headline, IBM Opposes RFRA. Also several hundreds of corporations were the reason for Indiana changing its position on RFRA. Some outfits ordered their same sex folks to get married. Take your blinders and filters off folks, this is much bigger than you would expect or believe, much better organized, more powerful financially, etc. The next stage of the game will be the removal legally of religious freedom. Just imagine what will happen to our children and grandchildren and great grands, if we have any by that time.

June 8, 2015 11:35 pm

Bill Mac

I don’t ask for a lot in a candidate. I want one who is:
1: Intelligent
2: Articulate
3: Informed.
Yes, of course I want them to have the right stand on the issues, but I’m open to a little variation on some things other than abortion. I want someone who doesn’t sound like an idiot, can think on their feet, and doesn’t simply spout conservative sound bites.

Huckabee is, I think, a huckster. I once heard Glenn Beck say he is the most disingenuous person he’s ever met.
Jindal was on my radar until he started talking about muslim no-go zones in France and doubled down when he was proven wrong.
I would actually like Bush if he wasn’t a Bush.
Perry: Crackpot
Cruz: Mean crackpot.
Walker: Dunno
Christie: Used to like him a lot, but I’ve come to believe he’s just a big bully.
Graham: Dunno, he’s just “oily”. A career politician.
Paul: I like Paul a little but his silly habit of condescendingly lecturing media people has rubbed me the wrong way.
Carson: The gay/prison thing made him look like an idiot.
Rubio: I suppose Rubio leads the pack for me.

The nut squad: Trump, Palin (fill in the blanks). These people are an embarrassment.

I would really like someone who wouldn’t spend his first 4 years blaming the current president for everything that’s wrong in the country.

Glenn Beck called someone disingenuous? LOL That takes a lot of nerve in my book. Other than Rush Limbaugh no one has ever made more of a mockery of Christians and Christianiy than Glenn Beck. He is the very definition of a huckster. And the worst part is, soooooo many Christians don’t just listen to him, they believe he is on our side.

Unreal.

(And I don’t like Huckabee. Just can’t believe that Beck would have the gall to say that anout anyone!)

June 9, 2015 7:02 am

Bill Mac

Ryan,
Yes, I felt that way too, but since Glenn has been known to suck up to evangelicals, I didn’t feel like I could just dismiss it out of hand. I’ve always put Beck in the same category as Ron Paul, a little wisdom surrounded by a whole lotta crazy.

Mike Huckabee – One of ours, you say? I don’t want him and don’t care if he is one of ours. Talk to one of your senior adults who has gotten on his mail list. He’s running to build the lucrative list and stay visible. I’m near disgust here.

Rick Perry – second-tier candidate. Blew it. Probably not another shot.
Marco Rubio – top-tier candidate; very sharp, easily presidential though young; would do well against Hil.
Rick Santorum – third-tier candidate; I like him a lot but no chance

Jeb Bush – A yawner but I’d vote for him early and often
Chris Christie – sideshow but a must-have for the debates
Bobby Jindal – I like him; not top tier; maybe 2020
Scott Walker – Very sharp; tested; like him a lot

Evangelicals have a couple of big problems:
1. Single issue voters, abortion, are perfectly willing to had over the presidency to abortion advocates so that they can feel good about their vote. Abortion is a state issue. Not a national issue. (spare me the argument about SCOTUS, that’s like Charlie Brown and the football).
2. When “our” kind of candidates whistle in the early primary season, evangelicals and especially Southern Baptists reflexively start drooling and come with tails wagging. It’s just silly. We still think we can restore America to where it’s never been, reclaim an America we never owned, take back America that we never had.

But…love the multitude of candidates. Very entertaining.

June 9, 2015 7:41 am

Tarheel

What about a walker/Jindal ticket?

June 9, 2015 9:09 am

Jess

Tarheel,

You spoke of my ignorance, I may be ignorant. If you are going to be a smart butt, first, you have to be smart. Don’t you think?

June 9, 2015 11:42 am

Tom Bryant

The whole problem is your word choice – “playing hard to get”. They believe that conservative evangelicals have no other place to go other than the Republicans.

That’s why we have leadership shilling for President Obama in every area he thinks is important. They don’t think we will rebel against Boehner, McConnell and the rest.

We ought not to play hard to get. We ought to divorce ourselves form the Republican party and choose the best person whether he runs as a Rep or as a 3rd party candidate. If the candidate loses, we are no worse off than we are right now. If we win, we have real change.

June 9, 2015 12:08 pm

Jess

Tom Bryant,

I agree with you, sir.

June 9, 2015 12:25 pm

Rick Patrick

“And Souter deceived to get his appointment and is not a conservative – never has been on SCOTUS.”

Yes. It is so terribly annoying when someone acts like they are one thing in order to gain a position, but then, once they have the position, they reveal they were something quite different all along, only they didn’t tell you at first, because they secretly wanted to reform you to their way of thinking.

I agree with you, Tarheel. This sort of thing is absolutely inexcusable.

June 9, 2015 12:29 pm

Max

“… acts like they are one thing in order to gain a position … something quite different all along … secretly wanted to reform you …”

So which folks on the extensive list of POTUS candidates are “not” that way? We ought to be able to trust the Southern Baptist runners … but remember Clinton and his bad representation of us (I can still remember the news clips of him singing in the choir at Hope AR and carrying his big Bible). On the other hand, Gov. Huckabee has a different look and feel … a tint of the genuine in what he says and does. Lord knows we could use a godly man in the White House again … when did we last have that?

Sorry to pick on you, Max. But something you say here is a good jumping-off illustration for the point I am trying to make…

You say, “Lord knows we could use a godly man in the White House again … when did we last have that?”

While I guess, all things equal, I wouldn’t mind a good solid Christian being POTUS, the thought does not get my heart racing, either. I would be afraid, number one, how all that power might corrupt an otherwise godly man. Number two, I would be concerned the church at large would get their focus on him instead of the Lord. Number three, if he does some stupid things (which all presidents do, sooner or later), the people in the world would blame it on his Christian faith, and use it as a point of ridicule–basically, what the Bible calls a stumbling block. Number four, I don’t really see what a Christian in the White House would do to change the spiritual condition of the nation or the world, anyway. It is God who does that through the obedient efforts of the church in evangelism and discipleship, not the political process.

Now if a few Supreme Court nominees could end up saving lives of a lot of unborn children, I might have to take back some of what I’ve said here…

June 9, 2015 2:27 pm

Max

Don’t feel bad about pickin’ on me, Brother Rogers. I encounter that a lot in the blogosphere!

I guess all our thoughts on the next POTUS are either wishful or desperate thinking any way. As your father used to say “A nation gets the kind of leadership that that nation deserves.” I still remember his sermon on “The Leadership Crisis in America.” He built his text around Proverbs 29:2:

“When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.”

June 9, 2015 7:25 pm

Jack

“””On the other hand, Gov. Huckabee has a different look and feel … a tint of the genuine in what he says and does.”””

I think I can concur with this.

June 9, 2015 5:54 pm

Joel Hunt

Why does this comment, coming from this person, not surprise me. 🙂

June 9, 2015 4:03 pm

Tarheel

Wow, Rick. Just wow.

You wonder why you are so oft identified as obsessed – you can’t even talk POTUS without bringing up that nonsense!

Chill dude!

June 9, 2015 4:36 pm

Joel Hunt

No joke… 😛

June 9, 2015 4:41 pm

Jess

I will vote for any Republican that is not in bed with the Tea Party. I hate the Tea Party. If all the republican candidates show support for the Tea Party, I will vote for Bernie, because I hate out of control capitalism. I’m for free education, free medical insurance for everyone, and if abortion is going to stand, I want it to be very costly, not free. I’m for term limits, (2). I’m against same sex marriage. I want a fair and balanced trade agreement with other countries.

I hate what the Republican Party has become, so please make me fall in love with you again. Don’t blow out someone else’s candle so yours will appear brighter. Do something, (just one thing), to help the American people. All you have ever done is support the rich. I want someone to show support for the poor working class and middle class.

Any Republican Candidate who agrees to an interview on Fox News, and gets pushed around by the host of the show, forget it, you don’t get my vote. Fox News controls the conservative side of the Republican party. There are a lot more moderate Republicans than Conservative in this country.

Every time a Republican has won the White House Democrats has put them in office. It would be good if we preachers would remember this.

June 9, 2015 2:49 pm

Joseph

So you’re a socialist. Just making sure I understand that correctly. It’s cool; most American voters are moderate socialists who don’t really mind government as long as it doesn’t harsh their mellow too much, even if they don’t want to admit that to themselves.

What, exactly, is out of control capitalism? Is that where people are free to utilize their resources in the way that they see fit? Because I’m a big fan of that. Sorry you’re not.

What, exactly, has the Republican party become? What I see is a group of ineffective representatives that pay lip service to conservatism, but decline to stand athwart history yelling stop, as William F. Buckley so eloquently put it. They are, to once again paraphrase Buckley, neither conservative nor Conservative. You seem to think the GOP has gone too far right; I, on the other hand, see them as having stagnated and accomplished little to nothing in the way of conservative policy.

To the fellow that wanted an assault rifle ban earlier…could you define assault rifle for me? Could you also provide a list of times an assault rifle was used in a murder in the US?

Me, well, I imagine I’m going to write “Zombie Calvin Coolidge” in on the presidential ballot.

What does all of this have to do with The Gospel? I imagine quite a bit, although there are those smarter than I who will opine on such matters. Generally, I come down on the side of liberty. I think it squares with Christianity pretty well.

June 10, 2015 11:30 am

Jess

Dave Miller,

I just wanted you to know, I hate Iowa State. They stole Steve Prohm from my Murray State Racers. Enjoy Steve, he is a top notch basketball coach.

June 9, 2015 4:48 pm

Bill Mac

Although they would like you to think so, the NRA does not equal the second amendment. It is possible to support the one without the other.

Also, being for alternative energy does not make one anti-oil. I drive cars and fly on planes and don’t like high fuel prices. But I’ve also been in downtown Beijing with its 5 million cars where the smog is so thick you sometimes cannot see the car in front of you and your eyes burn like fire. We have lots of smart people in this country. We can do better.

I’d also like to see a candidate whose pro-life position leads him/her to do more than simply attempt to outlaw abortion (which isn’t likely). I’d rather we actually saved some babies rather than take a position that would potentially save them all but in reality end up saving none.

Repeal Obamacare? Not gonna happen. Like abortion, this is one of those positions which sounds good and will get the uninformed to line up to vote for you, and one that they cannot possibly deliver. Fix it, piece by piece if you have do. Yes, it’s horrible legislation. So give us something better.

For too long we’ve voted for people who say they stand for something rather than people who actually do something.

Like Dave said, the 12 million illegals are not going to be deported. They simply aren’t. So the candidate that stands for finding them all and deporting them is simply taking an impossible position to pander for votes. We need to wake up.

Many of my friends say anyone would be better than Obama. Frankly I doubt that’s true, but even if it is, is that really our standard? Just someone better than Obama? We need to expect and demand better.

June 9, 2015 5:16 pm

Jack

“””Repeal Obamacare? Not gonna happen.”””

May not have to repeal it. Four or five words in the ACA may doom it. The Court has likely already decided, but not announced the fate of ObamaCare.

I am hopeful, but not overly optimistic.

June 9, 2015 5:56 pm

Bill Mac

As long as I’m adding to my list of dream candidate qualities, I’d really like someone who understood that “tough on crime” does not equal incarceration. Surely in a nation of some of the smartest and most creative people in the world, we could figure out ways of punishing non-violent offenders without locking them up. Our prisons do not rehabilitate. Let’s try to send as few people there as possible.

June 10, 2015 5:45 am

Joseph

Alternative energy is a bit of a specialty of mine; I worked in that area for about 6 years as an economist.

Current alternative energy schemes are not economically competitive without government subsidies…which mean they’re not economically competitive. Corn ethanol doesn’t have the energy content petroleum does. Natural gas would involve an infrastructure and technology shift that isn’t economically feasible on a large scale. The stories you hear about making oil from trees and grass are at the laboratory stage, not the refinery stage.

Is it possible to utilize alternative sources of energy? Yeah, of course. But right now they’re inefficient and costly. Economic feasibility is the main driver here, and one can even make the argument that non-market goods (air quality and other environmental concerns) are being taking into account in the price of these fuel sources.

More research would probably be a good thing. I’m not tied to oil; if my motorcycle could run off of well-wishes and burritos, I’d do it…if it were the most economic energy source. But right now, it ain’t, so I say we race with what we’ve brought to the track.

June 10, 2015 11:38 am

Bill Mac

Joseph: No one here is suggesting we abandon oil. All new technologies are too expensive in the beginning until their use grows. But the typical Republican position is to stick our heads in the sand and pretend that oil doesn’t pollute and that we have an infinite supply (or for a lot of evangelicals, enough until the Rapture).

June 11, 2015 8:35 am

Scott Shaver

Joseph.

Like it or not.

You, me and everybody reading this thread are “tied” to oil (petroleum, and petroleum gas liguids) FAR beyond what it takes to power our cars and motorcycles.

Virtually everything you touch, handle, utilize, wear, eat from, drink from has a petroleum based component not to mention the asphalt roads and highways you move from one place to another upon.

The hydrocarbon composition of natural gas liquids is fractionated, seperated by individual components and these components are further refined/developed for use in aerosols, the manufacture of PVC, hard plastics etc……a million different ways in which all of us and the modern world are TIED.

I agree with your point about O&G being more “economic” as fuel. But O&G provides the building blocks for a lot more than “energy” in the lives we live.

Not sure I’ve yet seen a hard plastic or plumbing material derived from corn, solar or wind.

June 11, 2015 10:18 am

Nate

The sad thing is the Democrats are all socialists, eroding away our freedoms by the day, and McConnell, Rand Paul and the other Republican Senators (and many Representatives) are doing nothing to stop them; in fact they support the big-businesses that are assisting in the process. The Asian free trade agreement they are fast-tracking for Obama will continue to kill manufacturing in this country, just like NAFTA and GATT before them. Furthermore, we keep letting more immigrants into the country that need manufacturing jobs (this includes both the legal and the illegal). The middle-class is disappearing and the socialists (e.g. govt.) are continuing to consolidate their power, and they do this by putting people on the govt. dole.

The Republicans running for President either want more war and/or more free trade and none of them will stop immigration (either illegal or legal). Huckabee doesn’t seem committed (he certainly wasn’t in 2008), why would we think he is now? As far as Rand Paul, forget that. Senators do not make good Presidents (name one). They are deal-makers, not leaders, they compromise instead of standing firm and marching forward. Paul speaks tough, but he fast tracked the Asian free trade for Obama and McConnell, and besides that, he’s a libertarian masquerading as a Republican (which is disingenuous). Don’t even bring up Bush…

The reality is I won’t vote for the Socialist baby-killers (Dems) and there is little hope voting for a Republican who will either be a Neo-Con (war monger) or a Big-Business Lackey who will continue to allow the 3rd world to immigrate while giving China (and others) all our manufacturing and infrastructure.

Unless there is a massive revival of those committed to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we can say Goodbye to Liberty.

I’m a free market guy myself, but you cant sacrifice national sovereignty and congress’ constitutional authority just for “free market” sake. Capitalism is a game between free markets, not a one way street (or “giant sucking sound” if you will).

June 9, 2015 10:32 pm

Nate

Adam,

Paul initially stood against it, but in the end he voted with all the Republicans for it. You can look it up on the govt. website. This is the problem with Paul, he is constantly playing all the angles.

Since we haven’t won the war on drugs,
should we just legalize the drugs?

We haven’t won the war against murder either.
People keep getting murdered across the USA.
And we’ve carried on the war against murder for over 200 years.
Does that mean we should legalize murder?
Of course not.
Tax murder? No.

Laws against a practice does not eliminate the practice.
But they do reduce it, stigmatize it, and punish the offenders.

Should marijuana and other illicit drugs be legalized? No.
But do some drug laws need to be changed? Probably so.
David R. Brumbelow

June 10, 2015 9:34 am

Tyler

I’m voting for the closest person to Ron Swanson.

June 10, 2015 11:34 am

Jess

I don’t think any of the Republican candidates that have thrown their hats into the ring was born in the U.S. I will have to talk to hospitals in various countries to confirm this. Kenya, you will be getting a call. I sincerely hope we get a candidate that is not stupid.

June 10, 2015 6:21 pm

Joseph

You may or may not like what he says or what he believes, but when it comes to brains, Ted Cruz is most likely the smartest candidate in the field. Alan Dershowitz claimed he was among the smartest students he ever taught.

June 11, 2015 8:11 am

Tarheel

I think that several of them are really, really smart – of course Mitt Romney was too – so having a huge intellect does not guarantee election.

Hmmmm…a professor actually remembering him being there and speaking to his academic ability is refreshing – classmates too. We do not hear such with regard to our current President. 😉

It is common on the left wing to attempt to present conservatives as stupid.

Bush has trouble articulating at times and wasn’t a Rhodes Scholar, but he wasn’t slow either. Ivy league grads seldom are.

You can pretty much count on our friends on the Dem side to paint the Republican nominee as stupid. It’s a given.

However, as we have seen, even

June 11, 2015 8:21 am

Bill Mac

People are (I hope) seldom as dumb as they appear, but really, do we want a candidate who is smart but appears dumb?

We need someone who is not only smart but articulate. Someone who can speak off script and gives more thoughtful answers than just conservative sound bites.

Maybe we don’t want a candidate who’s good at telling jokes about the opposition, whose expertise is in mockery and sarcasm. How about someone with actual ideas, as opposed to just opposition? The conservatives around me, all they want is opposition.

June 11, 2015 12:01 pm

Jess

1. No political party can declare war on women and expect to win the White House.
2. If there is a Republican president and a Republican Senate and House, it will be trying times for this country. I think giving will drop, and churches will have to tighten their belts. The price of everything will go up, that means family will come first, the church will be on down the line somewhere.

June 12, 2015 8:07 am

Jack

So early in the day, Jess, and you are already drunk!

I secretly hope you really don’t believe everything you say.

June 12, 2015 2:03 pm

Jess

Jack,

You’re funny. If I tell you tomorrow is Christmas, you can hang your stocking tonight.